nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Texas Shooter: "Church-goers are stupid"

Pintman Paddy Losty

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4851812/texas-church-shooting-boy-family-murdered-devin-kelley-26/

It appears the shooter in the awful Texas church massacre was a dedicated atheist who hated religion. Apparently he used to rant online about religion and preached his atheism on Facebook.

Atheist groups have distanced themselves from him in the aftermath and condemned his actions but I wonder was this a case of militant atheism going too far and causing someone with mental health problems to become radicalized.

The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam however there appears to be a reticence to link this attack to radical atheism.

Sometimes the scorn and derision that is heaped on believers can be a bit much. Maybe this is the result when that type of attitude festers and the wrong person is brainwashed.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mellor

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But has it even been established that this guy was an atheist

I don't think it actually has. The source for that appears to be two former classmates who said he "preached his atheism" on facebook.

On the other hand an article on the Friendly Atheist blog claimed his LinkedIn profile (since removed) said he taught kids Bible School at a (different) Baptist church in 2013.
Everything is very murky and I doubt any impartial report will ever come out.

I get that the 2nd amendment is important beans for Texans. So I'm not surprised the local who turned up with his own assault rifle was lauded a hero. But I was surpised the guy was actually refused a gun license.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott told CNN that the shooter had requested a Texas licence but was refused.

So the Texas Department of Public Safety, determined that this guy was unfit to own a gun - Texas said he wasn't trusted to own a gun! Yet...

Despite this, he was able to buy four firearms — one each year between 2014 and 2017 — including the assault rifle he used in the church massacre, and two handguns found in his car.

smacl

Working in Indiana for a bit some years ago, every man cave of the guys I worked with seemed to have an armoury including the ubiquitous AK47. It seemed very much the thing to do on going to a persons house, meet the wife and kids, grab a beer and go down to the basement to get shown the toys. While it may not be a problem for most people, you're going to get a certain number of violent nutters in every large population. Similarly people who are under a lot of duress or stress and may have been poorly treated, e.g. think of those losing their homes to vulture funds for example. If you give that section of the population AK47s, many gun deaths are inevitable. Bottom line is that society is not well served by allowing private citizens own this kind of hardware.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

the ubiquitous AK47.

AK47 would not be very popular in the USA, the AR15 is. Are you sure this wasn't Afghanistan you were visiting?
Automatic weapons (machine guns, if you like) are generally illegal in the USA, but semiautomatic are not (one shot at a time).
If guns were unavailable, and a guy wanted to wipe out a church congregation, he could just drive a HGV through it. They are mostly flimsy wooden buildings in the US.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

AK47 would not be very popular in the USA, the AR15 is. Are you sure this wasn't Afghanistan you were visiting?
Automatic weapons (machine guns, if you like) are generally illegal in the USA, but semiautomatic are not (one shot at a time).

That's what the owners told me, though I know squat about guns so couldn't be sure. That said, one of the guys also instructed at a rifle range at the weekend so I'd expect he knew his weapons.

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

North Korea is not only secular, it is an atheist state.

Repeating your assertion without new arguments does not add to the assertion. You still remain wrong. Let me show you how to make a claim AND back it up with an argument:

Let me repeat this for you once again: A secular state is one where there is a SEPARATION of state and religion. Focus on the word separation there, it is important for the next part.

If the state is persecuting, prosecuting, or even murdering people for their religious beliefs then automatically there is NO SEPERATION of religion and state. The state is DIRECTLY putting it's hands into the religious practices and affairs of it's people. And how!

Therefore simply by definition it is not, can not, be a secular state. You could not be more wrong, simply put.

As for it being a religion, it is a state religion much like we say in communist Russia and no one is "pretending" otherwise except you. You are projecting your pretense onto others here. The concept that there is an ETERNAL leader ruling on in part through a semi reincarnation into his own son is not a secular concept for sure, much less an atheist one.

Your petty haughty little response to my definition of evidence for you does not warrant a reply so we can skip that....

pone2012 wrote: »

Let me be totally honest with you...I gave up going back and forward with you because, it seems you cannot have a discussion without writing a book....

Now that is clearly a cop out canard given the length of your own responses. You are, much like myself, more than capable of holding your attention span on a full conversation. You just pretend otherwise when it basically suits your need to dodge and run away.

The simple fact is you ran away from that thread, you could not rebut ANYTHING I said, let alone most of it, and you had to be schooled on what for actual scientists like myself are basic 101 scientific concepts. Yet you go around decreeing by fiat that you understand science and it's methodologies to people who are in a position to clearly identify you as a basic lay man to the subject.

I think you know a bit about football. Imagine someone came into a room claiming to know LOADS about sport, and they declare David Beckham to be the best Cricket Player in the world. No matter how much they CLAIM to be a sports expert, your knowledge of the subject will be enough to tell you they are a complete bluff merchant. Right?

THAT is what you are doing however time you claim to know basic science, but with just about everything you say about it you demonstrate the opposite. People actually in the subject and in the area and in the know can spot a bluffer a mile away. Just like the day on boards when someone claiming to have a PHD in Physics declared to me on boards that the only reason we have gravity on earth is because the earth, like space stations, is spinning. A mistake that the average 14 year old in Junior Cycle Science would spot.

pone2012 wrote: »

You then proceeded to ask a postgraduate student to improve it

That was one PART of a complete investigation into your understanding of those limitations, what they are, what form they take, and what improvement TYPES (not specifics, just a general adumbration of where the improvements may lie) you could suggest. You could not answer ANY of that. The best you can do is screech "Limitations" without entering into ANY depth of conversation on them.

So no the goal was not, and never was, to get you to come up with a better method but to offer you a NUMBER of ways to enter into that conversation in any level of depth. Rather than do that however you chose to flee. Which is, of course, your right. But pretending you fled because of some imaginary agenda on my part is, just comedy really.

pone2012 wrote: »

Yet you've labelled these things myths....so are they myths? Or are you saying it really looks like they are, but im not 100% certain...Now its you who needs to be clear

You are entirely unclear on what you need me to be clear on. But let me offer you a basic dictionary interaction here which might help you along when it comes to the doctrines of many religions, including the "big" ones we experience most in Ireland.

Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Let us break that down for you point by point:

1) "A traditional story" - Check.
2) "especially concerning the history of a people" - Check.
3) "Explaining a natural or social phenomenon" - Check.
4) "Typically involving supernatural beings or events" - Check.

So no, it is not ME that needs to be clear here. If YOU have an issue with the word "Myth" then the clarity needs to come from YOU as to why that might be. Because I, shoot me if you have to, tend to use words in a way that fits their actual meaning. Shocking huh?????

pone2012 wrote: »

Concepts of Gods, Creation, Religions etc....you see that there are plenty of similarities I assume?

Absolutely! And thank you for being.... well a little clearer.... as to what you are asking. That was all I wanted.

Yes there are a lot of similarities through time and space in cultural myths on such things. And I do not find that surprising at all.

I think it was Terry Pratchett who suggested that anthropologists messed up calling us "Homo sapiens" (meaning wise man). He suggested we should have been called "Pan narrans" (meaning storytelling chimpanzee). Because that is exactly what we appear to be. An evolution of the chimpanzee line that is very much narrative based in our approach to reality.

So that our species regardless of time and place has come up with creation myths is not surprising. That is just what our brains do. We NEED stories that narrate our reality and our place in that reality.

Further we have evolved what some have called "The intentional stance" and "Hyper active Agency detection". What this basically means, for the lay man, is that we tend to see intention and agency where none actually exists. The evolutionary reason for this is clear: If you see no agency where there is some, you end up dead. If you see some where there is none, you just look a little silly. So over centuries of selection we evolved into a species that sees agency and intention where there is none. We also evolved something called a "theory of mind" which is where we can see, represent, and invent the minds of others almost like a "virtual sever" in our own brains.

I trust I do not need to explain the simple step from THOSE two things to seeing intention and agency in reality itself and.... thus..... the invention through the theory of mind the concepts of gods or a god? It is not a large leap at all. But a simple natural progression.

So as you can see, if you want to enter into a discussion on the similarities in creation and god narratives across our species..... which forgive me if I am wrong but I think that is what you are bringing up here..... I am both capable and willing to have that conversation with you. Here or, I suggest, another new thread?

pone2012 wrote: »

SNIP

As I am trying to reduce, not increase, the number of sections in each of our replies for the benefit of the other readers, I will address all your sections on the "posession video" in one section here.

Firstly since I referred to parts of the video directly, your outright lie that I did not watch the video is pretty blatant. Subtle lies are one thing, but being that blatant about it is rather sick.

No, rather what I am doing is seeing how YOU evaluate not just who the scientists were but what methodologies they actually employed. That was the point of my asking. And you stepped right into the trap.

As expected (yea sorry but I predicted your exact response which is why I laid the trap) you did little more than name some names and qualifications. You did not AT ALL address the science itself. You did not summarize the science that was done, the methodologies used, or anything. Nothing. At. All.

Your nonsense about "Can I prove he used chemicals" just shows your bias and lack of understanding of the methodology of science. I can not climb into the video and do the requisite tests. But the requisite tests were NOT done in this video.

What needs to be done, to bypass your simply appeal to ignorance effort at "evidence" is to have him do this "trick" and JUST before doing it you need to have a chemist walk over, swab his hands a few times, and then have him do his trick. Simple as that.

Did a SINGLE "scientist" in your video perform any such test? Hell no they did not. If they tried they probably would not even have been let do the video, let alone release it to the public.

But no, YOU are impressed solely by essentially saying nothing more than "Oh look, someone with QUALIFICATIONS was in the room! So there!" and you act like you know what science is? Comedy. Sheer. Comedy. Gold.

But the fact you and I can set fire to paper, or light light bulbs with our hands (both entirely easy to do) means the onus of evidence lies on YOU to show something magical is going on here, not on ME to show there is not. There is nothing more impressive in this video that Uri Geller bending spoons, or Yanagi Ryuken knocking people over in fights with his "chi".

You say you have contact details. Ask them why none of them thought to apply swabs to his hands before and after like any moderately capable scientist would.

pone2012 wrote: »

The only thing I think you are missing is the ability to interpret something without the skeptic hat you seem to wear....

The level of derision you pour on skepticism is weird to be honest. What alternative do you suggest? To accept without question anything and everyone someone offers me as true?

I am no more skeptical than you about claims YOU have heard and also do not believe. Whatever they may be. You operate EXACTLY like I do and likely feel EXACTLY like I do on the claims that YOU do not believe. Whether that be the people who saw elvis still alive, or the people who think Obama is an alien lizard in human disguise, or the people who claim they were abducted and anally probed (always anally for some reason with these people) by aliens.

Perhaps you are pretending (perhaps, I am not putting words in your mouth, just speculating) that being skeptical means "Deciding what not to believe and not beleiving it no matter how much evidence is presented". Because that WOULD be something worthy of derision.

"Skepticism" for me means not what I do, but who and what I am. I am simply someone who can not CHOOSE to believe or disbelieve something. Rather I am simply incapable of believing something unless adequate substantiation is offered for me to do so. I am similarly incapable of DISBELEVING something once that has been done. No matter how much I might dislike the claim or it's implications.

Further there is no bias on my part here. No need for this stuff NOT to be true. The world is a fabulous and exciting place. It would be even MORE fabulous and exciting again if it was full of exciting powers and the human body and/or brain was capable of fantastical feats of this sort.

But when you show me a video full of things I can already do myself, and then comically demand that I somehow prove the guy is doing the same things I can do..... then you simply have the onus of evidence reversed through a complete lack of understanding of methodologies like science that you are lay to.

AGAIN, when someone does a trick that 1000s of other people can do, and you want to claim that in this ONE case, rather than the other 1000s, something magical or different or special is going on.... then the onus of evidence for that claims lies squarely at your feet, not mine.

And I have offered you ways to do that already, since your post closed by asking me for some! And they are not complex things to do at all. AGAIN I ask, where were the chemists in the video swabbing the mans hands before and after he set fire to the paper? Where is the discussion of how they tested those swabs, and what they were tested for? Where is the discussion on a differential analysis to detect any differences between the before and after swabs, let alone the swabs in isolation, to detect if any changes had occured?

NONE of that happened yet that would be the absolute 101 BASICS that any credible scientist would have demanded. I would demand more than that, but the fact the absolute BASIC approach to testing this mans "abilities" was simply and entirely overlooked tells me MUCH more about the "scientists" in the room than your mere petty reference to what qualifications you believe they hold.

Qualifications tell us NOTHING. You seem to fall over in awe at them. But what a person says and does is what is important, not what letters they claim to have on either side of their name while doing or saying it. Your appeal to qualifications, your appeal to authority, is a fallacy of inordinate egrigiousness that along with lots of other things just highlights you are a complete non-scientist yourself despite claims to have some level of knowledge of the area.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again I trust you will understand if I attempt to reply to everything in your post(s) but with less sections. I do this not for my sake or yours (though I do only have 10 minutes to write this so I have to push my already impressive typing skills to the limit), but the readers of the thread.

Mellor wrote: »

Rebutted? You are still missing the point.

Again I have to point you towards the difference and distinction between missing a point, and disagreeing with it. You appear to want to pretend instances of the latter are instances of the former.

We were discussing how murder has nothing to do with atheism and YOU brought up how murder has nothing to do with Islam. I am showing you how this is a poor claim/analogy because:

a) There are doctrines that we can point to in the beliefs of Muslims that CAN (not do, can) lead to such actions. You can not do the same with atheism and

b) the link between Islam and murder is done by the murders themselves, they are literally TELLING us directly they are killing us in the name of their religious beliefs.

Remember I am not just talking to you, but I am talking to you in the context and topic of this thread. Which is kinda the rules of this site, not to derail threads. And the OP post, the context here, stated "The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam however there appears to be a reticence to link this attack to radical atheism."

And the context of my replies is to show to him and you that there is genuine good reason for that. I am discussing with THE THREAD (my proxy with you directly) about that topic.

Mellor wrote: »

Firstly I was have never blamed atheist for this incident. It would be very odd for me to do as, as an atheist.

Alas what you ARE claiming is a lot less clear than you think what you are NOT claiming is. You will notice than in a lot of my posts I sometimes have to clarify what I am NOT claiming, due to words being put in my mouth.

But it is a rhetorical rule of mine when doing that to re-state, usually if I can with new words and new structure and new form, what it is I AM claiming. Because I think simply saying "that is not what I am claiming" is unhelpful in the extreme.

I wonder if I could invite you to do the same. Because I have simply lost sight entirely of what it is you ARE claiming here, rather than what it is you are NOT. It SEEMS, as I said, that your claims boil down to nothing more than "Well no one can show it is IMPOSSIBLE for atheism to motivate people to kill". But weirdly I am not seeing anyone, least of all me, rebutting that position.

So you can keep pretending, entirely falsely and maliciously in my view, that I am "straw manning" or "ignoring" or "goal post moving" when I am doing none of these things. Or you can step back and think "Ok maybe what I AM claiming has been lost here, and people might benefit from me restating myself.... maybe in a new and clearer way......"

If that level of decorum too much to request do you think, or am I maybe well within the bounds of ethical propriety to suggest it, and you see the reasons for it and the benefit of it? Because so far your level of capability at discourse highlights you as someone I think MORE than capable in this regard and worth of further and deeper discourse.

Mellor wrote: »

You do relize that my first post on the thread, that you disputed, made no reference to any of your posts.

You do realize that I RESPONDED to your post and not every response is automatically a dispute or an affront. My first response to you, if you care to go back, has three sections. Check the FIRST section for example. Nothing there is disputing you. It was BUILDING ON what you said. If you choose, on a forum, to see every post to you as a rebuttal or dispute..... then that is your right but not something I need to pander to of course, right?

But the main talking point with your first post, and much of what you have written since, lies around the ideas of "an atheist CANT be motivated by their atheism and "an atheist has no beliefs". Those statements bring up worthy discussions, regardless of how representative of your own position they are.

An atheist, aside from some handful of nihilists I guess, are as full of beliefs as anyone else and they can be motivated by them but there is no sign they can or have been motivated by atheism itself. That is not saying it is 100% not possible, no one here appears to be THAT close minded but also there is no reason to be THAT pedantic.

The simple fact is we can not seem to find, I can not and you sure as hell can not so far, any thing about "I see no reason to believe there are gods, so I simply do not believe there are gods" and being motivated to do anything at all on that basis. EVERY time someone tries to show some action was motivated by atheism, they instantly have to start importing other things. And that is quite telling.

Mellor wrote: »

Exactly, an atheist has beliefs. Including his atheist ideology.

What is an "atheist ideology" exactly? Adumbrate it's form and content for us. Although I do not use the word atheist when describing myself, other people are quite valid in doing so, and I am not aware of holding anything in that regard that can be described as an ideology. I am, quite simply, someone who has never been convinced to even remotely suspect that god(s) exist. How is that an "ideology" exactly?

Rather what I am is someone who was born entirely and completely incapable of believing claims that are made without ANY substantiation. I can not "choose" my beliefs. They are something that happen to me. So "atheism" is not who I am, but a result of who I am. It is not my world view, but a consequence of my world view. It is no more based on an ideology than my inability to flap my arms and fly is based on a fear of heights.

Mellor wrote: »

I could go out today, kill a priest, a rabbi and a Imam. I could claim to be doing so in the name of atheism to rid the world of religion and the pain it has caused.

You could. But that would not yet be as coherent as an article like "Why we hate you and why we fight you". They go into some length about the religious motivations they have. They do not merely assert that motivation, they discuss it at some length, its foundations, it's roots, and more. I am sure you could make the assertion you describe, but I doubt you could do it with any level of coherence or explanation.

Even then the assertion is not based on atheism at all, even if you assert it to be. What you describe would be based on a form of social eugenics based around the idea human progress or well being would be improved by the removal of formal religion. That has nothing to do with atheism, and one would not even have to be atheist to espouse such a position. One could be very strongly deist and even theist and do so.

So yes, I would merely distinguish between someone asserting a link between X and atheism/theism and one coherently explaining the causal links and their foundation. This, your assertion above, would not at all do.

Mellor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

An atheist, aside from some handful of nihilists I guess, are as full of beliefs as anyone else and they can be motivated by them but there is no sign they can or have been motivated by atheism itself.

The initial post that I replied to, stated that an atheist has no beliefs, and therefore can't be motivated by any beliefs.
The motivation is up for debate, but the saying they are devoid of beliefs is silly imo.

What is an "atheist ideology" exactly?

Are you asked what is atheism or what I mean by an ideology. They are independent.

Rather what I am is someone who was born entirely and completely incapable of believing claims that are made without ANY substantiation.

To believe something you need to see some sort of evidence of proof and can't accept anything "just because". That's a perfectly reasonable. So because you've seen no evidence that God exists, you can't believe he exists. A fairly straightforward set of ideas. Not dissimilar from my own view.

Mellor wrote: »

Even then the assertion is not based on atheism at all, even if you assert it to be. What you describe would be based on a form of social eugenics based around the idea human progress or well being would be improved by the removal of formal religion.

Eugenics based on the belief that atheism is superior for social progress, or even necessary. And I think it's wrong to say that this hypothetical person (not me to be clear) has no beliefs. And that they can't be motivated by beliefs or by atheism.

That has nothing to do with atheism, and one would not even have to be atheist to espouse such a position. One could be very strongly deist and even theist and do so.

Deist I can agree with, obvious application. Theist, not so much. Unless you mean a situation where somebody rejects their own belief - I'm not sure what that makes them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Less sections in your post but I am going to still further try to compress my reply as you again included quotes from me as quotes from you and other weirdness. Again.... only doing this to help our other readers. No slight on you!

We are wholesale agreed on the notion being silly of atheists having "no beliefs". I have often heard theists claim "Atheists believe in nothing". It is a nonsense.

As I said my discussion of that point, off the back of your first post, appears to have been taken by you as a challenge or rebuttal when it was more that MY initial first post to you was more an extension to yours than a reply to it. It happens. No one's fault.

I am not asking you what atheism is though. Or what an ideology is. I was asking you to adumbrate the form and content of an "atheist ideology" specifically. Which is why I put it in quotes together, rather than separately. I am not aware of having one myself, or aware of anyone who identifies as "atheist" as having told me they do either. So I am genuinely agog to learn of it's form and content from you here today.

Mellor wrote: »

Eugenics based on the belief that atheism is superior for social progress, or even necessary.

Exactly! Which is itself NOT a tenet of atheism itself. Nor a requirement. A pre-requisite. Or a natural progression. It is an ENTIRELY independent conclusion, with it's own sources. So the motivation would be based not on atheism, but based on the persons beliefs around social progress and it's requirements.

NOTHING about atheism in and of itself suggests it is "better" or "worse" for social progress. To repeat the word I used earlier, you have to "import" other things to get there. And that has been my point all along, and you demonstrate it so well for me here so I thank you.

But a motivation from atheism you still have not shown.

Also interesting is that people like Micheal Nugent and Atheist Ireland REPEATEDLY say on the media that they would be as opposed to a state or curriculum or media that promotes atheism as they are to those that promote religion. Showing they too recognize that it being best for "social progress" is not a tenet of what they are espousing. What they/I seem to believe is that a state entirely neutral on religion and atheism is the social progress of choice.

Mellor wrote: »

Deist I can agree with, obvious application. Theist, not so much. Unless you mean a situation where somebody rejects their own belief - I'm not sure what that makes them.

For fear that we will move from a debate about what "atheist" means to a new one about what "theist" means...... I mean theist in the sense of a person who believes in an interventionist god. Rather than deist in the sense of a person who believes some deity created us, but is otherwise unconcerned (or perhaps even entirely unaware!!) of our existence.

There is nothing to stop such a theist hating religion(s), or the business empires (churches) built up around them. So no I do not think theists would be precluded from such things at all. In fact I have LONG lost count of the type of theist who says "I am religious but of no religion" or "I believe in god but not in any religion".

I THINK (at the risk of putting ideas in your mouth) you suspected I mean "theist" as in a member of some religion. While not impossible, it is less common for someone to be both invested in (a) religion and hate religion at the same time. At least their own one. Being well into a religion and hating OTHER religions (and members of it) is certainly more common.

looksee

Mod: Folks, you have a good discussion going there, but there is a bit of a tendency for personal digs, side swipes and a bit of aggression creeping in. They are not necessary and would be better avoided. Thanks for your attention.

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

Exactly, an atheist has beliefs. Including his atheist ideology.

I think that misunderstands the meaning of the word atheist, and it seems to be a common misunderstanding. While an atheist may have an ideology I would dispute the notion there is such a thing as an 'atheist ideology', i.e. an ideology that is formed solely around atheism. If you investigate what people refer to when they talk about an atheist ideology, what you typically see are secularist ideals, with a dash of scepticism and often a sprinkling of humanism. None of these things are atheist, as none of these things relate to a belief or lack thereof in a god or gods.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is nothing more impressive in this video that Uri Geller bending spoons, or Yanagi Ryuken knocking people over in fights with his "chi".

As you say, these things are fine until put to the test, as the above chi master found out rather bluntly Truly astounding the nonsense that some people believe. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah see you over shot to early on me there

I was waiting for pone to come back and tell me I can not prove the "master" did not have chi magic and that what was going on in the video was not magic.....

I was expecting him to do that because that is EXACTLY what he has done with the paper going on fire video. It is a trick I, and many 1000s of other people, can do and often do at parties and things. But still he said I can not prove that in THIS video that that is what is going on.

So on the off chance he was going to try the same nonsense with THAT video, I was holding the evidence of his first first real fight in reserve to show what happens when someone with magical chi combat powers comes up against an actual fighter.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for it being a religion, it is a state religion much like we say in communist Russia and no one is "pretending" otherwise except you. You are projecting your pretense onto others here. The concept that there is an ETERNAL leader ruling on in part through a semi reincarnation into his own son is not a secular concept for sure, much less an atheist one

These are neither examples of state religions...No matter how much you wish them to be

Juche is a political ideology...not a religion....Its a pity you cannot tell the difference

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

THAT is what you are doing however time you claim to know basic science, but with just about everything you say about it you demonstrate the opposite. People actually in the subject and in the area and in the know can spot a bluffer a mile away. Just like the day on boards when someone claiming to have a PHD in Physics declared to me on boards that the only reason we have gravity on earth is because the earth, like space stations, is spinning. A mistake that the average 14 year old in Junior Cycle Science would spot

But I am not "in the subject" . Do i understand the basics of science?
Yes

Am I curious about things that it cannot explain?
Yes

Do I attempt to deconstruct everything under a strictly scientific lens?
No

So ill take my understanding of science and what it can explain and be satisfied...there's absolutely no bluff on my behalf..I have no PhD (not yet anyway), I am not a researcher...Im a student.

The things that science cannot give a satisfactory explanation for, ill wait to see what happens...What i wont try to do is attempt to recreate something and pretend that explains it without having

A: Being present in the occurrence of said phenomena directly..or have direct access to same in future
B: A proper knowledge of whats going on
C: Fall victim to confirmation bias, or anything else that would blur truth

Simple enough to understand I hope

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That was one PART of a complete investigation into your understanding of those limitations, what they are, what form they take, and what improvement TYPES (not specifics, just a general adumbration of where the improvements may lie) you could suggest. You could not answer ANY of that. The best you can do is screech "Limitations" without entering into ANY depth of conversation on them.

Well, that's different that what you originally said

My only discussion was around the limitations in that it is only able to directly examine the observable universe....the unobservable is currently not directly examinable...and as such, given that it accounts for 95% of the universe..tells me that we know very little (in the greater scheme of things at least)

I would not argue that the method itself is strong, it is rather insider the observation and gathering of data that I personally think the weaknesses lie...In that we cannot make the observations we need to explain at present to examine the phenomena, and as such, the data we need to gather cannot be gathered...hence the lack of an explanation

What depth you want me to discuss this to im unsure?? [/QUOTE]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely! And thank you for being.... well a little clearer.... as to what you are asking. That was all I wanted.

Yes there are a lot of similarities through time and space in cultural myths on such things. And I do not find that surprising at all.

I think it was Terry Pratchett who suggested that anthropologists messed up calling us "Homo sapiens" (meaning wise man). He suggested we should have been called "Pan narrans" (meaning storytelling chimpanzee). Because that is exactly what we appear to be. An evolution of the chimpanzee line that is very much narrative based in our approach to reality.

So that our species regardless of time and place has come up with creation myths is not surprising. That is just what our brains do. We NEED stories that narrate our reality and our place in that reality.

Further we have evolved what some have called "The intentional stance" and "Hyper active Agency detection". What this basically means, for the lay man, is that we tend to see intention and agency where none actually exists. The evolutionary reason for this is clear: If you see no agency where there is some, you end up dead. If you see some where there is none, you just look a little silly. So over centuries of selection we evolved into a species that sees agency and intention where there is none. We also evolved something called a "theory of mind" which is where we can see, represent, and invent the minds of others almost like a "virtual sever" in our own brains.

I trust I do not need to explain the simple step from THOSE two things to seeing intention and agency in reality itself and.... thus..... the invention through the theory of mind the concepts of gods or a god? It is not a large leap at all. But a simple natural progression.

So as you can see, if you want to enter into a discussion on the similarities in creation and god narratives across our species..... which forgive me if I am wrong but I think that is what you are bringing up here..... I am both capable and willing to have that conversation with you. Here or, I suggest, another new thread?

I dont think there is a need to go deep on this topic. Im aware you are of the opinion that you have a strong disbelief in all such things...and I would prefer to avoid such topics...because i have made no claims regarding them. There are certainly some interesting parallels between some sections of said narratives....Lets bypass the discussion between them and get to the point

Do you not see any commonalities between any creation myths (diety present or absent) and the scientific explanation for the universe? I am curious....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did a SINGLE "scientist" in your video perform any such test? Hell no they did not. If they tried they probably would not even have been let do the video, let alone release it to the public.

But no, YOU are impressed solely by essentially saying nothing more than "Oh look, someone with QUALIFICATIONS was in the room! So there!" and you act like you know what science is? Comedy. Sheer. Comedy. Gold.

But the fact you and I can set fire to paper, or light light bulbs with our hands (both entirely easy to do) means the onus of evidence lies on YOU to show something magical is going on here, not on ME to show there is not. There is nothing more impressive in this video that Uri Geller bending spoons, or Yanagi Ryuken knocking people over in fights with his "chi".

You say you have contact details. Ask them why none of them thought to apply swabs to his hands before and after like any moderately capable scientist would.

But I am not curious as to what he did to inanimate objects...while not accounted for, only replicated with the use of additional material which we do not see in the video (Therefore you cannot be sure) you cannot confirm what he did...it is a subjective choice

What I am curious as to what he did to the people (Scientists included), and why when they tried to measure whatever energy he emitted, they could not? Are you implying that these people acted? are you questioning their ability to account for bias

I do not need to have the answers you require..ive read heavily into that man in question (and seen correspondence from his students) is enough for me to speculate as to what is going on and not chalk it down to trickery...Perhaps you dont share the same sentiment for human experiences?? i dont have to agree....I can simply keep an open mind until i see enough of an explanation to quell said curiosity

and i dont have contacts...i just know they are available on linkedin....easy enough to reach if you wish...and ask that question that you've posed to me... if you wish

[/QUOTE]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah see you over shot to early on me there I was waiting for pone to come back and tell me I can not prove the "master" did not have chi magic and that what was going on in the video was not magic.....

I was expecting him to do that because that is EXACTLY what he has done with the paper going on fire video. It is a trick I, and many 1000s of other people, can do and often do at parties and things. But still he said I can not prove that in THIS video that that is what is going on.

So on the off chance he was going to try the same nonsense with THAT video, I was holding the evidence of his first first real fight in reserve to show what happens when someone with magical chi combat powers comes up against an actual fighter.

Interesting, i dont believe said "master" was a fighter at all....nice jump though

Yes, I am aware of your charitable, skeptic account of whats going on in that video....I just dont accept it on the basis that the person had no apparent motivation to perform trickery of any sort.....

Also note, i never once said I bought the explanation...I merely find it interesting......particularly given the context and explanations given.....regardless...skeptics are rarely convinced...so forgive me if the replies regards the above become thinner and nonexistent from here on in

whats more interesting to me...is how said discussion erupted from a persons atheism being a possible driver for mass murder....so when we are finished with the sidetrack...perhaps lets continue with that....and save the scientific, supernatural, metaphysical for another time...

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah see you over shot to early on me there I was waiting for pone to come back and tell me I can not prove the "master" did not have chi magic and that what was going on in the video was not magic.....

I was expecting him to do that because that is EXACTLY what he has done with the paper going on fire video. It is a trick I, and many 1000s of other people, can do and often do at parties and things. But still he said I can not prove that in THIS video that that is what is going on.

So on the off chance he was going to try the same nonsense with THAT video, I was holding the evidence of his first first real fight in reserve to show what happens when someone with magical chi combat powers comes up against an actual fighter.

I'm also still waiting for him to substantiate the claim that possessed people can climb walls Spider-man style.

I can only assume that they've seen a verifiable, clear video and that they aren't just regurgitating a factoid they swallowed without actually trying to confirm it.

pauldla

King Mob wrote: »

I'm also still waiting for him to substantiate the claim that possessed people can climb walls Spider-man style.

I can only assume that they've seen a verifiable, clear video and that they aren't just regurgitating a factoid they swallowed without actually trying to confirm it.

Can they? Climb walls Spider-man style? That'd be pretty cool actually, especially with the Christmas coming and a house full of decorations to put up. Other religions should follow suit with such abilities, it'd get them no end of followers and would help counter all that 'burden-of-proof' nonsense as well.

uck51js9zml2yt

looksee wrote: »

It makes perfect sense, a religious person has beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not.

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

Manic Moran

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

I'm not mindless.... Just manic

AK47 would not be very popular in the USA, the AR15 is. Are you sure this wasn't Afghanistan you were visiting?

AKs are not uncommon, they are generally substantially cheaper than an AR. Not quite as modular, not quite as accurate, but reliable as all heck. I've one myself (A 74, not a 47), I do not own an AR. Granted, the Army lets me shoot ARs, so I see no reason to own one myself as a collector.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

If you looked back over the posts in A&A you would find that Pherekydes' definition is the one accepted here.

I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

According to A&A doctrine of course

smacl

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

So perhaps you'd then be able to describe for us what an 'atheist worldview' entails exactly. Similarly, other than a disbelief in god, describe an 'atheist belief'.

smacl

Swanner wrote: »

I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

According to A&A doctrine of course

Pherekyde's definition is largely consistent with the dictionary definition though. 'A lack of belief in a god or gods' as opposed to 'a lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods' it was in response to Pone1s statement that atheism is a blatant disbelief in gods which is less consistent with the dictionaries.

Posts such as yours above do more to label you as a troll than say anything about this forum

GritBiscuit

Swanner wrote: »

I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

According to A&A doctrine of course

Most people are theists and historically atheists have been seen as some jumped up pretentious naysayers rejecting someone's precious beliefs/religion - that effects the common definitions of language - which are ever evolving. Not all dictionaries agree on the definition of atheism and some fail to take into account odd fish like me who never developed any kind of belief or faith in the first place. I maintain my human-default of zero belief in god/gods.

It's not something obvious and tangible that I simply refuse to believe in, it's not something I used to believe in that I have since rejected, it's not some club I have chosen to join because I follow some shared agenda or social system, atheism is the label I am automatically assigned by virtue of having never embraced theism. The definition in A&A already takes into account people like me...consider them ahead of their time.

Akrasia

There are atheists, there are anti-theists, and there are people who really hate a specific religion.

There are lots of christians who hate muslims and might go on a shooting spree against muslims but not in the name of their religion, but it's because they hate muslims.

There are also lots of ex christians who have grown to hate the religion they were brought up in. Maybe they were abused, maybe they just resent being controlled and lied to for their entire childhood. Maybe they hate their family and the religious practices that seem to define them.

There are atheists who have looked at the ideas behind religion and came to realise that there is probably no god and all religions are wrong.

Where does this guy fit in?

Well, he was a man who was prone to violence, and that violence cost him everything, his career, his family and he was living in an RV without much prospects.

If he truly was an atheist, then he knows that going on a shooting rampage will result in either him dying with no afterlife, or he would spend the rest of his life in jail, so what is the motivation for him killing all those people. He knows death is the end, so it's hardly for his own reputation, to be a 'martyr'.

What I think, is that this guy was suicidal, angry, resentful and already prone to violence, so he just figured f*ck it, he wanted to die and take out as many of those people that he hated with him as he could.

When a religious person does a suicide attack, I think suicide is probably the main driver for the attack, but rather than do the decent thing and just kill themselves, they are conflicted with the religious bans on suicide and worried that if they die that way, the afterlife will be even worse than the life they are unhappy in now.

So, they find a way to turn their suicide into an act of worship, so that they can die as a martyr and be venerated by at least some people in this world, and leave open the door to not burning in hell.

So while atheists are perfectly capable of committing atrocities in acts of suicide, the religious who are suicidal are conflicted within themselves and some of them will be driven to find a 'honourable death' or a different way out of the world that doesn't involve themselves deliberately killing themselves. Whether that's joining the military, or a militia and fighting for their religion, or becoming a suicide bomber or some other 'death by misadventure'.

The Bishop Basher

smacl wrote: »

Posts such as yours above do more to label you as a troll than say anything about this forum

The irony of this appears to be lost on you so we'll just leave it there.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Not all dictionaries agree on the definition of atheism

3 of the leading dictionaries were quoted here and all broadly agree on the wording..

Only the good people of A&A believe they know better :rolleyes:

This has to be the least tolerant and inclusive forum on boards.

Maybe it should be renamed the Militant Atheist forum.

Then we could set up another forum for agnostics and non militant atheists where we could all actually have a voice without being patronised and preached at. Who knows, maybe even different views could be tolerated..

Just an idea..

But this place has long become an echo chamber for a small group of people and as happens with any clique, everyone else has drifted or been chased away..

On that note..

GritBiscuit

"Broadly agreeing" isn't agreeing, particularly on something as precise as a dictionary definition...the differences are in the nuances, in the semantics - you don't have agreement on that across the board then they are effectively different definitions...and of course that still doesn't acknowledge definitions change.

looksee

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

How on earth did you come to this conclusion? Ok, I will rephrase it:

a religious person has religious beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not have religious beliefs to be driven by.

This was in response to

Its nonsense to state that a religious person is driven by their beliefs, yet an atheist person is not...that makes zero sense

Yes it is true that an atheist could be driven by their belief that, say sexism or racism is wrong, but we were discussing religious beliefs, no other beliefs had come into the discussion at that stage, it was reasonable to continue to use the word 'belief' to mean religious beliefs.

...and its moron, unless you want to gratuitously insult all Morans.

smacl

Swanner wrote: »

This has to be the least tolerant and inclusive forum on boards.

Maybe it should be renamed the Militant Atheist forum.

Then we could set up another forum for agnostics and non militant atheists where we could all actually have a voice without being patronised and preached at. Who knows, maybe even different views could be tolerated..

Just an idea..

But this place has long become an echo chamber for a small group of people and as happens with any clique, everyone else has drifted or been chased away..

On that note..

Says the poster who drops by with nothing more to add than a patronising comment. Perhaps you could contribute such a well thought through contrary opinion rather than a patronising insult next time you deign to grace us with your presence. :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

These are neither examples of state religions...No matter how much you wish them to be Juche is a political ideology...not a religion....Its a pity you cannot tell the difference

Yet the only one failing to see the difference is you. I explained to you already what secularism means. It is a separation of church and state.

A state that is persecuting, prosecuting, or even murdering it's citizens based on their religious practices is violating that separation and is therefore not secular.

The failure to tell the difference between separation, and violation of that separation, is yours and not mine. North Korea is NOT secular by definition.

pone2012 wrote: »

Do i understand the basics of science? Yes
<SNIP>
The things that science cannot give a satisfactory explanation for, ill wait to see what happens...What i wont try to do is attempt to recreate something and pretend that explains it

Then I can only urge you to keep up the studies. Because despite claiming over and over you understand the basics, you have not actually demonstrated that understanding at all yet.

But the above is a good example of how you do not understand the basics. Specifically the onus of proof and evidence. IF you want to claim some act in the video was in any way different to the 1000s of other people doing the same tricks, then the onus of evidence is on you.

By all means present that evidence. In the interim however all I see in a video of someone setting fire to paper with their hands, is a trick both I, an 1000s of other people, know well how to do.

pone2012 wrote: »

Well, that's different that what you originally said

Nope. It really is not. Anyone can go back to your discussion on the limitations of science and show you were entirely unable then, as now, to discuss those limitations in any coherent detail.

The thread is still there for anyone who want to go back to it. Including a number of posts you simply did not bother addressing at the time.

The only "limitations" you were able to offer was to list things not yet explained. That is not a limitation of science, that is the current status of it. As I explained to you then, there is a difference between what science has not YET explained and what it CAN NOT explain.

Yet here you are in this thread essentially saying the same thing again.

pone2012 wrote: »

I dont think there is a need to go deep on this topic

YOU asked me to go into it, and when when I respond to do so you simple dodge and dismiss it with a "No need to go into it" response? At least you were honest in what you said next, that you are bypassing the discussion. Because that is EXACTLY what this is.

pone2012 wrote: »

Do you not see any commonalities between any creation myths

Well sure, I just listed some in the "discussion" that you just "bypassed" while also explaining not just those commonalities, but the basis I believe there is for why they exist.

I am not sure what you think you are playing at here, but asking me to go into it, then claiming not to want to go into it, but then asking questions that were DIRECTLY answered in the stuff you just ignored...... is pretty insipid.

So rather than leading questions that were already addressed, perhaps you can stop playing games and simply go wherever you are going with this and come out with it.

pone2012 wrote: »

are you questioning their ability to account for bias

I am questioning their credentials in totality yes. NOTHING about what was shown in those videos showed a scientific methodology or approach or controls. NOTHING about what was shown in the video showed they brought to bear any of the actual tools of the methodologies of science. NOTHING about what was shown in that video, aside from listing credentials at the camera suggested they were in any way scientists.

There were egregious methodological failures, to the trained eye, leaping out of the video one after the other. I would, as someone ACTUALLY cognizant of the methodologies, have gone in with an entirely different approach to all of it. They are, from a scientific viewpoint, an embarrassment to themselves and the methodologies they claim to be trained in.

pone2012 wrote: »

Interesting, i dont believe said "master" was a fighter at all....nice jump though

Nor did I say you did. What I am saying was I laid it out as another example of a video someone could jump on to say "well you can not prove he was NOT doing something out of the ordinary here".

It is an example the EXACT same tosh you are pedaling at us. In that had that been the only video available, you could waltz in and say that without independent access no one could prove the negative on that one either. There would be no more (or less) reason to takes the feats of magic in THAT video any less seriously that what is going on in YOURS.

That was the point being made, not the one you invented here. But invariably, like EVERY TIME, when someone who actually does have the capability to test the claims in question, they fall as flat on their face as the sad charlatan of an old man did in the follow up video.

Again however, to explain one of the most basic tenets of the scientific method that you so often claim to understand..... when we observe something that we have observed 1000s of times before..... that has a mundane and known explanation...... then if YOU want to pretend ONE single example of that something is special then the onus of evidence to prove it is is on YOU. No one else. Just. You.

That you pretend I need to go and falsify your fantasies about that video is just a huge waving flag that tells us the scientific methodologies are not actually understood by you at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

Amazing how little sense another persons post makes if you contrive to entirely ignore the context in which they have posted it. You have chosen to ignore that context, it would seem, in order to call something rubbish by pretending it was different to what was actually said.

Replace the context however and what the poster is saying with "a religious person has beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not" is a reference to beliefs they have by virtue of their being theist/atheist.

There is seemingly nothing about being an atheist, in other words, that gives one beliefs to be driven by.

Micheal Nugent, for one, disagrees with that I believe. But his disagreement seems to be more of a linguistic consensus thing, than a "beliefs leading from atheism" thing. In that there is a limited amount of things that can fill the vacuum of a lack of theism, and hence most atheists seem to reach consensus on those things.... such as humanism and the like.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

Well sure, it always pays to remember that dictionaries do not give meanings to words or define them. They are not the arbiter of what words mean. They are, rather, a reflection of the currant usage of words in a society.

Even the word agnostic, for example, is defined in dictionaries.... and used in common speech, in a way that is VERY different from how Thomas Huxley defined it when he coined it. As the usage of a word changes over time, the dictionaries should (though they are often slow to) change with it.

I have, in my social life, my public debating career, my blogging life, my forum life (I post heavily on 5 and moderately on at least 20 more), my work with Atheist Ireland, Atheist Alliance International, and two atheist groups in Germany, and in my reading of books written by atheists.......... met and glimpsed into the minds of many many atheists.

And in my experience at least the VAST (near totality) majority of people who identify with the term atheist would identify with simply being someone who does not have a belief in any gods.

So IF that is the common and consensus usage outside of just my own anecdotal experience then sure, the dictionaries do indeed need to be informed to update themselves to reflect that. Because that is.... you know.... their purpose.

I actually think the word itself is etymologically the wrong one anyway. A means without. A-theism is without a theism. What are deists? They have no theism either. For me the word should always have been adeist, not atheist. Which is one of the MANY reasons I never actually identify myself using the word atheist when I can otherwise help it.

smacl

pauldla wrote: »

Can they? Climb walls Spider-man style? That'd be pretty cool actually, especially with the Christmas coming and a house full of decorations to put up. Other religions should follow suit with such abilities, it'd get them no end of followers and would help counter all that 'burden-of-proof' nonsense as well.

You thinking of planning a rescue mission for the drone and cat stuck in Mr Puddings tree? Maybe Spidey could just hang upside down artistically from one of the branches to add to the whole ensemble.